thanks for the explaination. You are right, I'm sceptical of meridian-based theory. I'll try not to be as biased, if you try to read my questions as being neutral...fair enough?

wait...hold off on the 'neutral' bit for a sec...

before someone tries shutting down the questioning by stating something like: "you can't know unless you have experience with study by a qualified instructor of dim mak." - to which, my question would be: "why? do YOU have experience with either causing delayed illness (and STD's dont count lol) or experienced being hit in a dim mak point that caused your liver to fail on the next full moon?"

ok...just had to get that out of my system

seriously and with all the neutrality I can muster... There are things in MA that we just can't train with full power and intent - it really is too dangerous, and we have to go to work the next day more or less intact. To that, I think we can agree.

Follow my logic... So how do we know if something would actually work or not? well, it's not the 'dangerous technique' itself that is actually tested - it's the training required to be in the position to carry it out.

What I mean is, let's say we had a bunch of expendable brainless clones to train on. so we practice, I don't know, how best to snap a neck or something. well, training just that doesn't do a heck of a lot of good, since realistically not many assailents are going to let you walk up to them, get in position, and snap their neck. right?

so the training becomes more (lets say a drill for this particular example) principle-based as oppossed to technique based: "control the head" being a principle. Now, "control the head" can be safely trained. Then it's just assumed (in training), that if I train to "control the head", then IF I happen to get into a position where I COULD perhaps crank the neck to it's breaking point, it's easy to imagine being able to do so. (also other options like cutting off the air/blood supply).

but in training, the partner just taps or otherwise indicates 'yep, you got me' so the applyer releases and all get to go home in one piece.

you know all this already. that a resistive principle-based training drill to "control the head" is much more important and practical than practicing individual techniques for "snapping necks".

Overlay that same training method logic with Dim Mak. You train to get into position to apply it, NOT the actual applying (since killing or cripling your training partner isn't cool). correct?

ok, what are you basing success on? with a neck-crank, we've got the uke tapping, plus an easy to imagine outcome if full pressure/intent is applyied.

Ed, that's not a bad perception, it just needs a bit of "other logic" attached. I'll try not to "step in it" over this...

Quote: There are things in MA that we just can't train with full power and intent - it really is too dangerous, and we have to go to work the next day more or less intact. To that, I think we can agree.

Absolutely. Most of my training is "very restrained"... leading to a "guided throw" or "focused punch" without causing damaging physical side effects. That being said, however, I can easily see how to do it, what to do, and how the technique works with just a "bit more" emphasis. Shihonage, for example, is very safely trained in the dojo, but simply changing the angle of application would rip your shoulder out... but we train that technique almost every class.

Quote: So how do we know if something would actually work or not? well, it's not the 'dangerous technique' itself that is actually tested - it's the training required to be in the position to carry it out.

I agree to a point with that... but it actually goes a little deeper. Now I know that people train "vagus nerve strikes" (ST-9) all the time, and with some small increase in either accuracy or pressure could absolutely kill someone without much remedy. That particular nerve is attached to every major organ in the body, and hitting it can cause an irreversible shutdown of any number of body systems. Want me to just give it a "love tap" for funsies?.. I don't think so. Heart surgeons don't even want to touch that nerve during surgery because of it's volatility.

Think of it in terms of shooting a pistol. I shoot well, and for the most part, I'm very accurate. I practice all the time, and it's clear that my .40 caliber will blow a hole in just about anything. That doesn't mean I want to have you go hold my target while I practice, or that you want to be on the "other end" of my practice.

While I agree that the DM training is somewhat theoretical in it's actual applications, the techniques coming out of kata should show you that there are "hitting points" that are more devastating than simply blocking or punching to a general area. Training in your "vital area" targets is exactly the same as DM training, and creates the same effects. Merely the nuances of striking structured points, in order or combination, takes methodical training... devoid of the idea that it "could do this" or not... it takes development of a particular set of skills to reach those points during fighting... i.e., the kata application.

I don't think I've covered how much actual "out of the dojo" study is necessary to learn the points, and the combinations in "modern" martial arts, which doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it works, but it sure occupies a lot of time...

_________________________
What man is a man that does not make the world a better place?... from "Kingdom of Heaven"

I find that an intriguing statement. I don't know of any scientists that think that science HAS all the answers. That type of thinking is not how science works at all. Science is about asking questions and doing meaningful research (with peer review) to find out what the answer may be.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Not true science, but today's version of it does. Concensus is reported as fact... take Global Warming, for instance. There are so many holes in the science of global warming that climatologists are changing professions to avoid facing the wrath of the "scientific community"... who is in the process of structuring a whole new economic system based on this environmental terrorism. "Carbon credits"... and a whole new scam of "we can sell you some authority to continue polluting for XXX years if you pay us $$$$$... big bucks.

How many medicines have been recalled? The courts are full of lawsuits where "the new miracle drug" worked great for a few years, until the "unreported side effects" started showing up.

Quote:Science is about asking questions and doing meaningful research (with peer review) to find out what the answer may be.

It's a bit hard to do research in systems of shutting the body down... they lock you up for it. Hitler and Stalin did a bit of that, but I hardly call it "scientific" study into Dim Mak... their research was in "better killing methods and disposal of the bodies"...

Medical "science" is way overblown as to it's capability and it's ability to solve problems. We're having "drug resistant" problems with staph infections now that medical science doesn't have a clue how to defend against... so where is all that "science" when they don't FIND the answer?Do they get credit for good guesses?

Scientific analysis...prediction of the resultshypothesis of what will happen based on the predictiontest the datarecord the resultsanalyze the results and create findingscompare the findings with the hypothesis, and if the results differ from the hypothesis, you change the hypothesis to match the results.

Now, you're no longer answering the question you originally asked, you're simply rephrasing the question based on the results so you have a matching hypothesis and answer.

That's the scientific method that is being taught to students in high school... What gets lost is the actual answer to the original question... and data is as easily manipulated as changing numbers...

If you don't want to change your question, you simply change the results to match your expected answer. You say, that's done with "peer review"... which is "consesus"... not actually proving or disproving the data, but agreeing to develop a "common answer".

By the way, I spent 25 years doing pollution abatement, and have some minor science background in chemistry and mechanical engineering working on pollution abatement project design. Scrubbing chemical plant exhausts and cleaning effluent discharges are my thing... and so I'm quite familiar with how science works... both on the academic and practical levels.

And science still doesn't have the answers...

_________________________
What man is a man that does not make the world a better place?... from "Kingdom of Heaven"

With all due respect, you are still not getting what I'm trying to relate. Science is not the/an answer......it is a process. Answers may change as new facts are discovered. I realize this is brutally difficult for some people to understand, since they want perfection, instantly. But that isn't possible all the time.

Quote:How many medicines have been recalled? The courts are full of lawsuits where "the new miracle drug" worked great for a few years, until the "unreported side effects" started showing up.

Are those flaws of science or flaws of business? Were the effects not known, or were they hidden? Was enough study not done, or not allowed? Etc.

Quote:Medical "science" is way overblown as to it's capability and it's ability to solve problems.

Again, "overblown" in who's estimation? Certainly not by scientists. Very few of THEM think that they have solved every problem. Most of them are painfully aware how far they have to go in that regard.

Quote:We're having "drug resistant" problems with staph infections now that medical science doesn't have a clue how to defend against... so where is all that "science" when they don't FIND the answer?

Actually they have known (and been openly discussing) the problem for many years now. The over-reliance on anti-biotics and anti-bacterial soaps have fostered that problem. Can't blame science if people don't listen when solutions are offered ie; stop using so many anti-biotics.

Quote:Now, you're no longer answering the question you originally asked, you're simply rephrasing the question based on the results so you have a matching hypothesis and answer.

You mean like the current administration has done with say.......global warming?

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

corruption is in every discipline....from physical scientists to meridian theorists to theologians.

science, when non-corrupt, endevors to find empirical truths.

psudo-science endevors to prove perceived and relative truths.

since there is no empirical evidence of chi meridians, then that just means it's scientifically unproven. It does not mean it's false. it just means: "chi meridians could exist, but if they do, scientific study has not found emperical evidence of them."

people who say chi meridians DO exist, but then do not produce emperical evidence, are using psudo-scientific method. (ie: I believe or perceive it to be true, so therefore it is true.)

had another thought... 'empirical evidence' such as people dying from baseballs to the chest or in boxing/football/hockey getting hit just right, etc is evidence of not one thing. it's on a case by case basis depending on where/how they got hit, pre-existing conditions that perhaps made them suceptable, and the like case-by-case evidence.

To use these freak cases as evidence of either chi meridians or dim mak is a leap to conclusion. it's superimposing data onto a conclusion instead of just going where the evidence leads.

If it's not apparent (as in a neck crank) of the outcome - "If I hit here, then it will cause the liver to shut down within 24 hours", then again, what are you basing success on if it cant be tested and you don't have any empirical data?

basically you are taking an instructor's word for it....which may be an agreed upon opinion on his part of the dim mak community as a while....and they in turn base THEIR assumption on ancient Chinese texts. so ultimately, it's a leap of faith that the texts were not written for hype, but are based on emperical study (and the only way to study something such as this is thru systematic trial and error on some poor souls who were deemed expendable).

possible they did that? of course. but if such morbid study was ever done, the data itself was never published. All you see are the reported results. not sure about you, but if someone were to publish a revolutionary theory, it kinda goes without saying that you'd want to see the data the theory was based on. otherwise the theory is taken on faith.

another curious thing about the Chinese prior to adopting western medicine practice. their beliefs thru the centuries more-or-less forbid disection of the human body. They resorted to metaphoric language to describe what they observed externally and felt internally. not good or bad, just saying interesting to note.

one last point. The word 'theory' is sometimes used loosely. but in the scientific community if something is regarded as a bona-fide theory - it's pretty serious and one step away from being a law of science/nature.

In psudo-science the word 'theory' tries to be downgraded to mean 'opinion'. A theory is not merely an opinion.

For example, the theory of evolution is not on level ground as the theory of intelligent design. I.D. when put thru the same rigors that evolution has survived for well over 100 years, does not cut the mustard even close. Therefore, that I.D. is referred to as a 'theory' is a self-proclaimed title. It's not a theory of science since it doesn't pass the rigors beyond opinion.

I think 'merdian/chi theory' falls into that category as well. 'theory' in the case of dim mak, would be a self-proclaimed and self-serving title to say the least.

I see you want to make the conversation personal instead of making points that stand up on their own.

so you have been trained in Dim Mak then, eyrie?

your consistant attempts of making points thru the diversionary tactic of insults to me, my training and instruction is noted. but very much not respected as a valid position in argument.

yet once again, we are faced with someone who has never shown himself either on video or in person to anyone here. Funny how everyone claiming they 'do it right', are the ones which have never been seen.

you claim that calmness/patience thru meditation is a prerequisite to understanding IMA...yet you are the first to lose your temper in these conversations - is that indicitive of you not understanding?

btw - What is the measurement of your waistline again, eyrie?

see, I can get personal too. doesn't really add to the conversation though, does it.

Quote:If you actually spent some time training (correctly and in the prescribed manner), you will start to feel where these "chi" meridians are. And while you're at it, look up "musculotendonous system".

Yet another condescending, ad hominem attack. Don't suppose you would care to actually answer a question, or actually add some detail, would you?

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin